Keeping icy roads and parking lots safe is costly and necessary work. The U.S. spends about $2.3 billion each year to remove highway snow and ice (1). Most de-icing is accomplished by mechanical methods (scraping, pushing or plowing) or by applying chemicals and/or sand as an abrasive. Chemical de-icing compounds depress the freezing temperature of water and chemically turn ice back into water, improving vehicle and pedestrian safety.

Traditionally, transportation agencies and businesses have used chloride-based salts as deicers. But chlorides resist break down in the environment and are corrosive to bridges, other metal structures, especially aluminum, and to the metal parts of vehicles, especially underneath the car. Damage from salt corrosion costs the U.S. up to about $19 billion per year (1). Chloride also alters soil pH and dehydrates plants along road, highways and parking lots. Increased salinity also threatens the health of drinking water supplies for humans and wildlife. Additionally, some compounds often used in conjunction with chlorides – such as certain metals and cyanide – worsen the negative impacts on surrounding ecosystems.

The above financial and environmental costs have prompted a surge in research on limiting usage of harmful deicers. What strategies can reduce the amount or impacts of de-icing, without sacrificing environmental health or road safety?

Key Findings

De-icing is defined as removal of snow, ice or frost from a surface. Anti-icing chemicals can supplement de-icing processes, and can also be applied ahead of time to delay or prevent the bond of ice and snow to the roadway, making mechanical removal easier.

Many transportation departments and businesses with good management plans try to minimize chlorides and typically deploy a variety of road treatments or chemicals, depending on temperatures and conditions. Other treatments include: sanding, plowing and snow removal, and street closures. Road salt is more effective at temperatures around 15 degrees Fahrenheit or lower (3), while calcium magnesium acetate’s (CMA’s) effectiveness diminishes below these temperatures. In most cases, relying on a single substitute for chloride won’t work. Using sand, for example, can improve traction but fails to offer the same deicing or anti-icing properties as chemicals. Also, if used excessively, sand can clog storm drains and get carried by melting snow and ice into nearby streams, causing excess sediment in waterways.

The city of Portland, OR uses CMA, a less toxic compound than chlorides, to deice dangerous streets, bridges, and overpasses. The city’s Snow and Ice plan (6) suggests that road crews deploy magnesium chloride only in temperatures below 17 degrees Fahrenheit, a rare low temperature in Portland’s relatively temperate climate.

Here are a few lists demonstrating some of the less toxic de-icing agents, certified by the entity noted below.

*DISCLAIMER: PPRC does not endorse or guarantee performance of any of the products listed here.

A number of food-production byproducts have promising anti-icing and deicing properties. Some examples include: tomato juice, sugar beet juice (or molasses), pickle juice, and barley residue. A number of these liquids have worked on small scales, at the municipal level and in pilot studies, as alternatives or as supplements to more toxic compounds. Even larger entities, such as the New York State Thruway Authority, recently began using an anti-icing mixture of sugar beet juice and brine to pretreat roads. A number of municipalities have reported that using sugar beet juice to supplement chloride both saves money and lessens environmental impacts. This method reduces the salt draining to sewage systems and into the environment, but it does not eliminate salt altogether.

In addition to studying alternative deicers, the Center for Environmentally Sustainable Transportation in Cold Climates (CESTCC) is developing technologies that facilitate better management of deicers. CESTCC has helped develop “smart snowplows,” which use sensors to gauge an appropriate level of chemical application. “Ordinary snowplows have at least one sensor to measure pavement temperature,” Xianming Shi, assistant director of the center, said. “Smart snowplows not only read temperature but also residual salt from previous applications, the presence of ice and the amount of friction on the road. All of these readings help operators apply less salt.” These plows are currently being integrated into winter fleets (4).

While researchers test the effectiveness and scale-up potential of safer alternatives, a number of management solutions can work now to reduce roadway toxicity. The Transportation Research Board recently published a synthesis of Strategies to Mitigate the Impacts of Chloride Roadway Deicers on the Natural Environment. The report documents a range of management strategies, such as improving salt management plans, staff training, monitoring and record keeping, weather forecasting, and vegetation management (2).

Other strategies to minimize environmental impacts include:

Installing a road weather information system (RWIS) technology provides timely and accurate information on upcoming and currnet weather and pavement conditions, to plan for appropriate anti-icing and de-icing needs.

Apply the least amount of chemicals necessary to melt the ice, following manufacturer instructions. Do not overspread, or under-dilute when mixing is required). Excessive application of deicers does not improve effectiveness. Instead, over-application will waste materials, releasing unnecessary chemicals. Some chemicals, salts especially, can be wetted to spread more easily so less is needed. However, this can also contribute to higher corrosion rate of equipment.

Employ anti-icing strategies and products prevent ice from building up on roadways in the first place. Most commonly, this means spreading anti-icing liquid, or pre-salting roads, about two hours before a storm hits to help prevent ice from sticking. The EPA estimates pre-salting can reduce salt use by 41 percent to 75 percent (6).

Avoid more toxic chemicals by using products certified by the entities shown above.

Throughout the country, municipalities have started to use a variety of less toxic alternatives, or supplements, to chlorides. The most effective way to reduce toxics and maintain road safety, however, is to establish a good ice management plan that deploys a variety of road treatments depending on temperature and road conditions.

Additional Resources

The challenge of limiting toxic deicer usage has prompted the development of a number of local and national initiatives and resources. The following resources provide additional info on the public and environmental health impacts of deicers as well useful solutions and strategies for transportation departments and businesses:

* DISCLAIMER: PPRC does not endorse any specific products or manufacturers mentioned herein.

Background

The installation of synthetic turf fields has skyrocketed in recent years. The Synthetic Turf council estimates that over 11,000 turf fields are currently in use in the U.S.. Though synthetic fields may offer some benefits over natural grass, a number of news features and studies have raised questions about the environmental and health impacts of synthetic turf. A few of these concerns are:

Much of the debate about the toxicity of turf fields has focused on the infill, or the small pellets of rubber first added to turf in the late 1990’s that provide bounce and cushion. Almost all fields installed in the U.S. use crumb rubber infill, made by grinding up old tires, or a silica sand/crumb rubber mix. As part of the positive side of the environmental ledger, turf fields offer a major outlet for recycling old tires. Rick Doyle, president of the Synthetic Turf Council, says the synthetic turf industry currently recycles 1/12 of the 300 million auto tires that are withdrawn from use each year.

On the negative side of the ledger, however, tire crumb rubber contains a mixture of all the chemicals found in tires. Four chemicals found in tire crumb rubber have been labeled carcinogens by the International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC). Carbon black, for example, typically makes up 20 – 40 percent of infill. Studies show that crumb rubber fields emit more volatile chemicals as temperatures increase. This is a concern because turf fields with black crumb rubber typically get much hotter – often 40 to 60 degrees hotter – than ambient temperatures. Tires also contain zinc, a regulated metal in stormwater, which can leach out of the rubber infill material.

Despite the above studies, a few news outlets have reported a suspicious grouping of cancer cases that raise serious questions about the safety of exposure to synthetic turf. Also, many of the authors of the above studies recognize major limitations in their abilities to establish the safety of modern synthetic turf fields. Limitations and variables include: the limited number of samples and sites, the diversity of tire crumb material, ambient outdoor temperatures, and field age. David R. Brown, a directing member of Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI), says that the main barrier to assessing the safety of recycled tire rubber is the high variability in tire construction and the lack of chemical characterization of the crumb rubber. “Very few samples have been tested,” Brown says. “There is no study with sufficient sample sizes to determine the potential hazard.”

Exercising the precautionary principle, the New York City Department of Parks and the Los Angeles Unified School District have both decided to ban crumb rubber infill in the construction of any new artificial turf fields. For facilities wishing to follow this example, several organic infill materials are available in the North American market. Organic options, which are typically more expensive than crumb rubber, include sand, coated sand, and other fibers. Another option is to use less toxic plastics.

Two commercially available infill materials include Ecofill, produced by Mondo, and Geo Turf, produced by Limonata Sport. Mondo makes a polyolefin-based granule that, according to the company: disperses heat more efficiently; is highly shock absorbent; does not contain polyvinyl chloride, chlorine, plasticizers, heavy metals, or other harmful chemicals; and is 100% recyclable. Geo Turf is made from coconut husks and cork. This “corkonut” material can be reused in gardens, driveways, or other fields after the life cycle of the turf. Domenic Carapella, Managing Director of Limonta Sport USA, states: “We have had the entire system of turf, backing and organic infill tested and re-tested by independent, accredited labs to determine that our synthetic turf and organic infill system contains undetectable amounts of lead, and other heavy metals and volatiles; eliminating the threat of urban water run-off, contaminated soil and associated health concerns.” See the advertised environmental benefits here. Geo Turf is also endorsed by the National Green Energy Council.

Synthetic turf end-of-life costs, both economic and environmental, often get overlooked. But these costs can be significant and worth considering at the onset, especially as increasing numbers of turf fields are recycled in the coming years. According to the Synthetic Sport Council, by 2017 over 1,000 synthetic turf fields will be deconstructed annually.

Turf fields pose a recycling problem because they are typically composed of diverse materials. Conventional turf includes a variety of polymers such as polyethylene, polypropylene, nylon, styrene butadiene rubber and polyurethane. In order to be recycled, these materials need to be separated, a process that requires shipping turf to a processing facility. After the turf has been separated from the infill, it can be broken down into materials suitable for post-consumer plastics. The Synthetic Turf Council proposes the following ways that turf can be recycled:

It can be converted to energy by incineration, pyrolysis, or gasification.

It can be converted to synthetic lumber, boards, railroad ties or other compression/injection molded products, such as carpet and turf backing, resilient flooring and, again, infill.

Synthetic turf can be reused in a number of ways, but re-using the entire 80,000 square feet of an average turf field may require some creative thinking. The Synthetic Turf Council proposes these reuse methods:

Baseball – in batting cages, in front of dugouts, bullpens, and as indoor practice and hitting facilities.

Golf – in driving ranges, lining for sand traps for erosion control, and as driving mats.

Other sports fields – as sidelines, protective strips for running track, and general indoor use

Turf paint is applied to the turf in different ways depending on the sport(s) played on the field. Often, a field is dedicated to one or a few sports. For instance, some community centers have fields that are marked for football, soccer, and baseball. In this case, the field is often marked with permanent turf paint to minimize repainting. On other fields, moreso collegiate and pro, removable paint is applied for different sports, and visiting and home team logos are often temporarily painted on the turf.

The removal process typically involves spraying a release agent on the area to be removed, followed by manual wiping or scrubbing, or use of an agitating/vacuum machine, followed by water rinsing.

Green steps for paint removal:

Use removers formulated specifically for the type or brand of paint and type of turf.

Perform removal in the cooler parts of the day so less harsh chemicals are required to get the job done.

Use hoses and water rinse nozzles that provide high-pressure spray with lower volume of water.

Ensure dirty /paint washwater is going down a sanitary sewer drain, not a stormwater drain that leads directly to nearby body of water.

Take measure to ensure spill and leak prevention during storage, use, and material transfer of removal solution.

Green recommendations for paint and painting methods:

Purchase turf paints evaluated and certified to be less impactful to the environment, such as water-based, and those listed in EPA’s DfE Labelled Products (scroll down to “Athletic Field Paint”). Washington’s green chemistry award winner, TempLine turf paint, is another option.

DO NOT use aerosol spray paint in cans that release propellants into the air and contribute to solid waste (empty cans).

Purchase concentrated paints to reduce packaging and transport of water in shipping.

When painting logos, consider using less background colors to reduce amount of paint needed.

Hold the paint nozzle close to the surface to minimize evaporation and drift.

Check the weather report and plan to paint on days that are not too windy or rainy

Take measure to ensure spill and leak prevention during storage, use, and material transfer of paints.

]]>http://pprc.org/index.php/2015/p2-rapid/how-can-we-make-synthetic-turf-fields-safer/feed/0What Are Safer Alternatives to Toxic Label Removers?http://pprc.org/index.php/2014/p2-rapid/what-are-safer-alternatives-to-toxic-label-removers/
http://pprc.org/index.php/2014/p2-rapid/what-are-safer-alternatives-to-toxic-label-removers/#commentsThu, 20 Nov 2014 21:10:30 +0000http://pprc.org/?p=8328RAPID RESPONSE Request: Can you identify a safer chemical, other than muriatic or s…]]>RAPID RESPONSE Request: Can you identify a safer chemical, other than muriatic or sulfuric acid or methylene chloride, that will remove stubborn ink/printed labels from bottles.

Request by: Idaho Manufacturer

Background

One of the product lines manufactured by an Idaho company is unique glass items made from used bottles. The manufacturer cuts the tops off of bottles, grinds any rough edges, and then re-sells them as drinking glasses, windchimes, candle holders, and a variety of other products. All previous labels and ink or printing must be removed from the bottles prior to re-use.

Labels and some of the printed ink labeling are easily removable with benign chemicals, water, and/or elbow grease with scouring pads and scraping tools. However, some bottles have very stubborn ink, possibly thermally bonded to the glass, and nothing seems to be able to remove the labels except muriatic or sulfuric acid. High strength methylene chloride fails on some of the labels. (See photo).

In the case of two of the company’s bottle suppliers, the labels are so persistent that they actually leave a “ghost” image on the bottle, even though the paint has been removed. The company is concerned about occupational exposure, odors from the storage area of these chemicals, and hazardous waste generation.

Key Findings

Blasting or etching of the adhered ink is not acceptable because it leaves a frosty surface on the final product.

Safer stripping products easily remove most of the inks on the bottles, depending on the type of ink and how it was applied. To remove strongly adhered inks, the company, with assistance from Idaho DEQ, is testing different products in a chemical alternatives replacement analysis. To date, none of the safer alternatives tested have worked, although they may need to retest some of them at the exact set time and temperature specifications for the stripper.

The California Department of Public Health, Occupational Health Branch has published a guideance poster listing active ingredients in stripper products, from “safest” to “avoid”, and also provides information on the affects and protective measures. Their safest recommendations for preferred stripping agents benzyl alcohol, soy, and dibasic esters. They suggest using the following With Caution: sodium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, and calcium hydroxide. Then, because of it’s listing on California’s Prop 64 list, N‐Methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) is suggested to be used with Extreme Caution. Finally, Not Recommended, are toluene, methylene chloride, and methanol. The document does not provide guidance on d-limonene, or use of acids, the latter of which the Idaho company is currently continuing to use for the stubborn labels. Some people have serious allergies to d-limonene products.

Disclaimer: PPRC does not endorse or guarantee the performance or safety of any specific product, chemical, company, or brand mentioned herein. Any products selected for testing or use must follow safety and use personal protective equipment (PPE), and/or vented fume hoods, as directed on MSDS or SDS/spec sheets.

The following products were recommended from various users, including automotive fleets, or others that have tried these products or types of products. Some of these strippers may take more time to work than others and have different optimal temperatures for removal.

Home brewers tend to have a similar challenge removing ink labels. This YouTube video shows a calcium, lime, and rust remover called CLR, (reportedly containing glycolic, sulfamic, and citric acids and surfactants) that easily removes some painted labels on beer bottles. We could not find the concentration of the ingredients in this product, or a verified listing of ingredients, or occupational safety hazards. If this product is effective, we recommend getting all the product and safety information from the manufacturer prior to use.

Some brewers also suggest soaking bottles in a Coke or Pepsi product for days to expose them to phosphoric acid.

Additional product suggestions can be found at the Toxics Use Reduction Institute’s (TURI) CleanerSolutions Database. TURI provided a safety score on each of the products with 50 being the maximum score and safest product. When they test products, they also consider how it will be used, e.g., immersion, ultrasonic cleaning, etc.

Additional Safety and Exposure Recommendations

Avoid falling for greenwashing about “safer products” just because the product literature or labeling says “safer”, “biodegradable”, “green”, or similar marketing terms.

Use the lowest concentration possible. For products that demonstrate effectiveness, experimentation may prove that lower concentrations will also work.

Use chemicals at the specified temperature for maximum effectiveness.

If an acid is the only viable solution, some acids decompose at a slow rate, so some gas (e.g., sulfur dioxide from sulfuric acid), is unavoidable. Acids can corrode storage containers. Spills can occur during use as well. Exterior rinsing of bottles and cabinet maintenance are recommended.

Also, for acids and caustics especially, ensure appropriate PPE is used at ALL times, including face and arm protection, especially with acids, to protect from splashing or spills.

PPRC does not recommend sulfuric acid (CAS 7664-93-9) as it is considered a carcinogen (Jersey Department of Health Right to Know factsheet).

Results / Conclusion

The Idaho company is currently experimenting with some of the above alternatives but has not settled on a final solution for the more stubborn labels. This case study will be updated if any new successful alternatives are found. Please contact PPRC if you have additional ink stripper suggestions.

]]>http://pprc.org/index.php/2014/p2-rapid/what-are-safer-alternatives-to-toxic-label-removers/feed/0Which Communities Have Compost Facilities and Ban Foodwaste in Landfill?http://pprc.org/index.php/2014/p2-rapid/which-communities-have-compost-facilities/
http://pprc.org/index.php/2014/p2-rapid/which-communities-have-compost-facilities/#commentsWed, 12 Nov 2014 17:22:39 +0000http://pprc.org/?p=8277RAPID RESPONSE REQUEST: Which states have banned food waste organics to landfill, …]]>RAPID RESPONSE REQUEST: Which states have banned food waste organics to landfill, and which states currently have operational commercial compost facilities?

Request made by: Green Sports Alliance

Background

The Green Sports Alliance (GSA) works to provide assistance to its members, consisting of professional and collegiate sports stadiums, fields, and venues. One opportunity that has proved successful for several of their members is to reduce waste by diverting compostable materials from landfill. GSA wants to produce useful information

for others wanting to implement similar programs. Ultimately, if sports venues can help educate and motivate attendees and fans to recycle and compost more, these habits may pass on to in-home practices in their communities.

States, Counties, or Cities that have Banned Organics to Landfills

While there may be a handful of communities that outright ban disposal of food waste in the landfill, there is not an available list or resource confirming this information.

The states of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont, have banned landfill disposal of food waste from large commercial food waste generators.

The U.S. Composting Council provides a visual map of “State Landfill Bans on Organics”, but it offers no details on the type of organics banned (Yard/Green waste and/or food waste), and no information on whether this is a state wide ban or one for a few communities within the state.

A more common approach than a food waste ban is a mandate that larger quantity generators, such as restaurants, grocers, and even large sports arenas, must source separate and divert food scraps from the landfill.

For example, San Francisco (California), and Seattle (Washington) both have mandatory requirements for food scraps diversion from households and commercial/institutional establishments. But neither of these cities, to our knowledge, actually bans disposal of food scraps in their designated landfills.

Other municipalities, such as San Diego and Charleston County, South Carolina, offer a significantly discounted tipping fee for source separated commercial food scraps.

New York City is pushing for a rule requiring large-scale food scraps from hotels, hospitals, and other large generators to divert waste from the landfill. If enacted, however, this will also not be an actual ban on landfilling.

States with Operational Commercial Compost Facilities

In a recent report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, state officials across the US were asked to tally the number of composting facilities in their state by volume of processing capacity. Thirty-one states responded with the following processing amount per year:

2,354 facilities (in those 31 states) are composting less than 5,000 tons/year.

713 facilities are composting in the range from 5,000 to 20,000 tons/year.

Section 3 of this report details which states have composting facilities, but does not provide location of the facilities in the different communities within the state.

As for finding out whether composting exists in a specific city or community, this tool from BioCycle is very useful! FindAComposter.com is an online directory, searchable by city, state, zipcode, or facility name. Some states or counties may also list permitted compost facilities on their websites. Finding a specific one may take a bit of searching on their respected websites, using search terms such as “permitted compost facility”, or “active solid waste facility”.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, there are no official bans on sending organics to landfill. However, many states have mandates that larger food and yard waste generators divert materials to a compost facility.

Many states have one, if not many, commercial composting facilities. BioCycle’s Findacomposter.com can help locate facilities in an area or region of interest.

]]>http://pprc.org/index.php/2014/p2-rapid/which-communities-have-compost-facilities/feed/0How to Recover Solvents From a Product Mixture?http://pprc.org/index.php/2014/p2-rapid/how-to-recover-solvents-from-a-product-mixture/
http://pprc.org/index.php/2014/p2-rapid/how-to-recover-solvents-from-a-product-mixture/#commentsTue, 11 Nov 2014 21:36:41 +0000http://pprc.org/?p=8270RAPID RESPONSE QUESTION: An Oregon client has a high-boiling point substance contaminated with organic solvents. What resources are available to help select the appropriate technology to recover solvents (acetone and toluene) from the mixture?

Request by: Anonymous

Background

An Oregon manufacturer recovers a high-boiling point product material from an industrial process. The material contains residual acetone and toluene which the manufacturer wants to remove and potentially recover for re-use. Information was requested on methods to recover solvent from the product mixture.

Solvent Recovery by Distillation

Both acetone and toluene are fairly volatile solvents. Their boiling points are substantially different (acetone boils at 56 C and toluene at 110.6 C), which would likely lead to an easy separation and recovery by a simple batch “kettle” still. If the initial product mixture contains other volatile components, fractional distillation may be required to achieve desired individual solvent purity.

Distillation for solvent recovery and reuse is widely practiced. Guidance documents on factors to consider in solvent recovery are provided in the Resource section below. Case studies of commercial implementations and vendor links are also listed. Equipment vendors can provide guidance on the scale and type of equipment appropriate for individual applications. Vendors will typically perform test distillations to verify performance.

Other Treatment Options

There are other treatment technologies available depending on the specific contaminant to be reduced.

If in-house expertise is not available, expert consultants can help design a system for the specific situation. System components can be selected based upon labor capacity, safety issues, space limitations, access limitation, the contaminant(s), and the specific water quality required. Designs are often flexible enough to accommodate future production growth, compliance limits, or different streams. Exchange vessels are often serviced and exchanged by a DOT-compliant vendor. Service ion exchange minimizes the need for handling and on-site storage of chemicals and wastes for improved safety and compliance.

Microfiltration is another technology that also offers a cost-effective solution for removal of heavy metals in wastewater and for water reuse applications. The membrane provides a barrier to the passage of solids and therefore is capable of removing metals (and other contaminants) to their solubility limits.

Disclaimer: PPRC does not endorse any particular vendor, material, or process, and provides these commercial links as examples only. Be sure to ask vendors for references and consider looking into competitors in the same market before proceeding with any purchase or commercial contract.

Background on Methicillin Rresistant S. aureus

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) is a type of staph bacteria that is resistant to certain antibiotics called beta-lactams. MRSA resists methicillin and other common antiobiotics such as oxacillin, penicillin, and amoxicillin. Most MRSA infections are skin infections (Centers for Disease Control).

Artificial turf, an increasingly common surface in urban and suburban spaces due to its low maintenance and water requirements, presents risks of causing MRSA infections. Turf fields, which both absorb bodily fluids and cause cuts and abrasions, can create environments where bacteria thrive. Studies, however, have not definitively shown that artificial turf harbors more risk of infection than natural grass. We do know that sports requiring more contact or time on the ground are more likely to cause staph infections than other sports. Wrestling, football, and rugby see the highest rates of infections, according to the CDC.

To limit the risk of infection, turf fields require proper cleaning maintenance. Also, athletic gear, especially if worn on the turf field, should be properly disinfected after use. Other preventive practices include (CDC, University of Rochester):

not sharing athletic gear or towels,

disinfecting weights and other athletic facility equipment,

disinfecting helmets and other protective gear frequently and per manufacturer’s instructions,

washing hands frequently and effectively, and using hand sanitizer,

covering existing wounds, and,

promptly and effectively treating new wounds. Washington Department of Health advocates this as one of the most important preventive measures, (Bernard, August 2013).

Background of UV treatment of bacteria on synthetic turf

Different turf cleaning options and products exist, including ultraviolet (UV) treatment, liquid chemicals (including enzymatic cleaners) and ozone treatment. Ultraviolet (UV) light is considered an effective method to eliminate harmful bacteria from food, water, air, and various surfaces. UVC treatment employs the C-band, a shorter wavelength of UV light that kills germs. UV treatment may also be referred to as Ultraviolet Germicidal Irradiation (UVGI). UVC ruptures the nucleic acids of micro-organisms, rendering bacteria inactive or harmless. The degree of the method’s success depends on variables such as: application time on the surface; beam strength and use over time[1]; positioning relative to the treated surface; and others. Light strength can diminish over time, so it is important that bulbs are changed per manufacturer’s instruction.

Studies suggest that the MRSA found on different surfaces – such as Kentucky bluegrass samples, low density polyethylene films, and human and animal skin – is inhibited or destroyed by relatively short exposure to UV light (Hardjawinta et al, 2005; Silva et al, 2003, Thai et al, 2002). Studies on non-turf surfaces, and on wounds infected with MRSA, have also shown that UV light can destroy this bacteria. Only two studies conducted on synthetic turf were found in the literature. These are summarized below.

As an additional plus for UVC cleaning of synthetic turf fields, the process releases no harmful toxins onto the field or to surrounding areas. Some liquid turf cleaners, in contrast, are toxic, and may pose risks to the health of workers, children, and surrounding ecosystems.

While this document is intended to cover UV treatment, there are a few additional links to different treatments in “Other Notes” below.

Key Findings

Only two studies were found on the effectiveness of UV treatments on artificial turf. These studies suggest that UV treatments are at least as effective in eliminating bacteria, if not more, than other turf cleaning methods. Both studies on UVC light tested on synthetic turf have come out of Penn State.

Though not peer reviewed, these internal studies hint at the effectiveness of UV irradiation in eliminating turf bacteria. A 2008 study tested the survival of S. aureus under different chemical treatments on both indoor and outdoor turf. Though the study didn’t test UVC treatment specifically, it concluded that UV light exposure (or sunlight) and high temperatures played significant roles in eliminating the bacteria from all the outdoor turf tests. A more recent study by Penn State’s Center for Sports Surface Research evaluated the efficacy of a UVC generating device in eliminating S, aureus on synthetic turf surfaces. The study was designed to replicate UVC cleaning devices on the market, specifically the GreenZapr from GreensGroomer Worldwide. UVC treated plots completely eliminated the bacteria on both samples of the turf fibers and on the rubber infill balls commonly applied to turf surfaces (McNitt and Petrunak, year unkown).

One company dedicated to UVC cleaning, GreensGroomer Worldwide, says that its products, the GreenZaprTM and MiniZaprTM, “destroy the DNA of bacteria or viruses such as MRSA, Staph, C. diff, Hepatitis, E-Coli, Influenza and others that can live for days on synthetic turf.”

Which facilities are using UVC treatment? A representative from SportsturfNW says that several professional, college, high school, and recreational facilities are using UVC technology (GreenZapr). “Two NFL teams are currently utilizing UVC technology (GreenZapr) and more are in the process of exploring the technology,” the representative said.

Those unaccustomed to using UVC technology may struggle at first to believe the processes’ effectiveness because it lacks much physical show. “People are used to seeing someone spraying and in their mind this is how it is done,” the representative of SportsturfNW said. “UVC is an old technology being adapted to today’s environment.”

Other Cleaning Alternatives

Other disinfection options may include antimicrobial chemicals, ozone, or enzymatic cleaning. A few examples are listed and linked below. No studies were found comparing bacteria elimination efficacy or environmental or occupational safety of these options to UVC.

Ozone treatment is mentioned as a disinfection option for this application, but no commercial technology appears to be available for use on artificial turf.

Conclusions

UV light is known to be an effective treatment method for eliminating bacterial risks from foods, water, and a variety of surfaces.

Though scientifically unproven (from our inquiry), UVC treatment appears a reasonable and effective method to reduce or eliminate the risks of MRSA from artificial turf. Many factors, however, can affect the success of the method. For example: application time on the surface and beam strength and use over time.

According to a representative from SportsTurfNW, several professional, college, high school, and recreational facilities are using UVC technology (GreenZapr).

Other cleaning alternatives exist, but no studies were found making direct comparisons between the effectiveness or health of these methods as compared to UVC treatment.

DISCLAIMER: PPRC does not endorse, recommend, nor guarantee efficacy of any of theproducts, technologies, or methods described below.

[1] “Germicidal UV lamps are good for approximately 10,000 hours of continuous use. Generally, lamps should be replaced at least once a year. Remember, the lamp will continue to stay lit for many years. However, the UV effectiveness needed to kill organisms diminishes after about 10,000 hours. You should not wait until the lamp goes out to replace it, as you would with a regular light bulb.” (UVtronics Frequently Asked Questions webpage)

]]>http://pprc.org/index.php/2013/p2-rapid/does-uv-turf-cleaning-work/feed/0Do Dental Night Guards Contain Chemicals of Concern?http://pprc.org/index.php/2013/p2-rapid/do-dental-night-guards-contain-chemicals-of-concern/
http://pprc.org/index.php/2013/p2-rapid/do-dental-night-guards-contain-chemicals-of-concern/#commentsTue, 07 May 2013 22:41:22 +0000http://pprc.org/?p=3316RAPID RESPONSE QUESTION: Following the advice of our 2009 Rapid Response, a consumer asked his dentist about the presence of chemicals of concern in materials for a new custom dental night guard (or appliance).

Request by: Anonymous Consumer

Key Findings

Some current dental guard products contain phthalates, BPA or other chemicals of concern.

Dentists often do not have information on the chemicals used in products they purchase for patients.

Data provided by a dental laboratory listed dialkyl phthalate in the materials used to make the guard.

Suppliers may offer technical data, such as Material Safety Data Sheets, but these won’t necessarily contain the full list of ingredients used in a product.

Background

PPRC occasionally receives inquiries on the safety of specific products. A recent inquiry on the safety of chemicals in night guard materials was prompted by our 2009 Rapid Response “Safety of Plastics in Dental Appliances.” This consumer was concerned about bisphenol-a (BPA) and wanted help understanding chemical information provided by his dentist.

In common practice, a dentist only makes a mold of the patient’s teeth. Using the mold, a separate dental laboratory prepares the custom appliance for the dentist. In this case, the dentist requested information from the appliance maker (the offsite laboratory), who complied by forwarding a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) from the material/ chemical supplier, Henry Schein, Inc. MSDSs for various products are available at the Henry Schein, Inc. website.

As required, the Schein MSDS for “Easy Flow Acrylic Powder” listed three hazardous ingredients: Dialkyl Phthalate (CAS# 84-66-2), Titanium Dioxide (CAS# 13453-67-7), and Mineral Pigments (CAS# 57453-37-5), but made no mention of BPA, the chemical of concern to the consumer.

Limitations of Material Data Safety Sheets

Unfortunately, MSDSs are not designed to convey chemical safety information to consumers, but rather to inform workers in occupational settings. Chemicals or mixtures are typically identified by CAS numbers (CAS#), which are often used as an identifying index in chemical information databases. MSDS sheets are only required to list hazardous ingredients, so they won’t necessarily include chemicals of concern which are not yet regulated by OSHA. Furthermore, there is no requirement to list hazardous ingredients present at less than 1% (less than 0.1% for carcinogens), so ingredients could be missing from an MSDS, but still present in the product.

While many dental polymers may use BPA as an ingredient, most polymers are not considered hazardous. New polymer materials are also mostly exempt from the Toxic Substances Control Act, due to a presumption of safety. Roughly speaking, because the size of the polymer molecule prevents their absorption by the bodies systems, they are assumed to be essentially inert. Health concerns are sometimes associated with the monomers (the small molecules that are put together to make the polymer and which remain at some level in all polymers) and additives or contaminants.

In this case, the MSDS product name suggests use of acrylic plastics (acrylates), but they are otherwise not specifically listed as ingredients. There are many types of acrylates, some of which incorporate bisphenol A (BPA) and similar chemicals. While bisphenol A is currently under scrutiny by federal agencies, it is not currently listed as hazardous under US regulation, and would not generally be listed on an MSDS. Information on BPA content may be listed on some manufacturer material brochures or websites, but most likely consumers will need to contact supplier technical staff directly. In this case, Henry Schein, Inc., a very large company, likely has staff available to respond to consumer inquiries.

Easy Flow Hazardous Chemicals

As mentioned above, the Easy Flow Acrylic Powder MSDS lists three hazardous ingredients, Dialkyl Phthalate (CAS# 84-66-2), Titanium Dioxide (CAS# 13453-67-7), and Mineral Pigments (CAS# 57453-37-5). Dialkyl phthalate, also called diethyl phthalate, has been listed as a potential endocrine disruptor by TEDX (The Endocrine Disruptor Exchange). Chemicals of concern are listed on the TEDX website via a downloadable Excel spreadsheet indexed by CAS number. Washington State has also identified diethyl phthalate on its list of “Chemicals of High Concern to Children,” due to the potential for endocrine effects. There are varying opinions about whether diethyl phthalate is a risk for adults in this or other applications, but those most concerned about safety might choose to avoid these products if there are BPA- and phthalate-free alternatives available.

Two standard databases of chemical information that we typically use, eChemPortal and the Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) had no information for the CAS numbers provided by Henry Schein, Inc. for either titanium dioxide or the mineral pigments. Searching the database for materials similar to titanium dioxide might reveal some relevant safety information, but given the potentially significant risk from phthalates, no further analysis was pursued.

Conclusions

Without further information from the supplier, it is not possible to determine whether the products in question contain BPA. As described in the 2009 Rapid Response, there is reason for concern about BPA in dental products, but no black and white answer regarding health effects of chemicals in dental applications.

The MSDS lists hazardous chemicals, but no information could be identified using the CAS numbers provided for two of the specific chemicals. On the other hand, dialkyl phthalate has been identified as a potential endocrine disruptor. Those concerned about phthalate exposure should inquire about the availability of phthalate-free alternative dental materials.

Can plastic chemicals used in a sous vide (SV) wrap product migrate into food during cooking? Are there any associated toxicity concerns?

Request by: a culinary school

Background

There are many uses of plastics in cooking, including using plastics in the microwave, baking turkeys and hams in plastic bags, using plastic liners in crock pots, and pre-prepared foods in boil-in bags intended for one-time use (e.g., rice and other items). One company, Lekeu, even offers a reusable silicone “boil-in” bag.

Sous-vide (SV) is a lesser known method of cooking wherein a product is vacuum-sealed in a food wrap bag or pouch. In French, Sous-vide means “under vacuum.” Compared to typical cooking methods like boiling or baking, the vacuum-sealed food is cooked in lower temperature water baths and for longer periods of time. Little data exists indicating whether any of the resins or additives used in these SV plastics, or their degradation products, migrate from the plastic into the food during cooking.

All end-use plastics include base polymer(s) along with different types of additives used to enhance the product and/or performance. Additives serve as antioxidants, stabilizers, plasticizers, lubricants, antimicrobials, anti-static and anti-blocking agents, “slips,” or heat resistance agents. While unconfirmed by SV packaging manufacturers, it is highly probable that SV packaging contains additives to allow it to withstand heated water and food contact, for extended time periods.

Two plastic additives in recent media coverage are bisphenol-A (BPA) and phthalates. BPA is used in rigid plastic such as polycarbonate. While many plastic manufacturers have gone “BPA free”, there is always a question of how safe the replacement additive for BPA truly is. For more information on BPA and possible alternatives, see PPRC’s Rapid Response report on BPA in Receipt Papers or the EPA’s Design for the Environment report on BPA Alternatives in Thermal Paper. Phthalates are often used as plasticizers to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) more pliable. Like BPA, some of the substitutes for phthalates may not significantly reduce the toxicity threat over the original phthalate(s).

Plastics and Food Contact Regulation

The FDA does not “approve products” containing any of the regulated polymers; it only regulates use of individual polymers and additives in food contact materials per the Inventory (above) and/or appropriate CFRs. The two resins likely to be used in SV packaging are low density polyethylene (LDPE) and nylon, with corresponding CFR references below.

To be used in food contact articles or products in commerce in the U.S., any polymer and each individual additive must be authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with limitations or specifications for its intended use. These stipulations often include concentration of the additive in the final product, end uses, and which FDA-defined “conditions of use” (e.g., temperatures during use) are acceptable, per Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 176.170(c), Table 2. Indirect Food Additives: Adjuvants, Production Aids, And Sanitizers (21 CFR Part 178) includes regulatory information about certain plastic additives.

While it may seem comforting to know that FDA regulates what can be added in plastic food-contact products, the actual Inventory of Effective Food Contact Substances (FCS) Notifications currently lists 963 different chemicals that can be used in food contact packaging. This inventory includes questionable compounds such as BPA, certain phthalates, and urea-melamine-formaldehyde resins. (The latter is only acceptable in small concentration for use in food washing pallets).

The FDA’s Guidance for Industry: Preparation of Premarket Submissions for Food Contact Substances: Chemistry Recommendations [6], Section 10, provides migration testing methods for individual food contact material per various use conditions (Uses A through G). This protocol also refers to “boil-in bags” but does not specifically refer to materials used in SV cooking. Within this non-mandatory protocol, and the FDA regulations, it appears that “Use D” (defined below, including the testing method) may be most applicable to SV cooking, although “Use C” could also be applicable when SV bath temperatures are above 150 dF. The definitions for the Conditions of Use are below. Recommended testing protocols for these conditions are found in the guidance.

Use C. Hot filled or pasteurized above 66°C (150°F).

Use D. Hot filled or pasteurized below 66°C (150°F).

What plastics and additives are used in SV pouches and wraps?

SV packaging suppliers have not been transparent about the additives found in their products. Also, no specifications or MSDS’ have been provided by manufacturers, or found online. Two manufacturers did disclose that their base resin materials are LDPE or LDPE/nylon layers.

One supplier, when asked, defensively stated, “Our material is FDA-approved, BPA and phthalate free.” First, BPA should not be found in film products, as the compound is used in rigid (#7) plastics. Second, calling a product “FDA-approved,”is a misnomer because, as explained above, the FDA does not approve products. Finally, listing a chemical on the FCS inventory does not guarantee its safety, and many of the FCS Notifications are chemicals of concern from a toxicity standpoint. It is unknown whether the limitations on use, as stipulated in each FCS, are tight enough to protect consumers from these chemicals of concern.

Another supplier claimed that their material is “100% LDPE.” However, LDPE requires additives to provide necessary functional attributes.

Do chemicals migrate from the plastic during SV cooking?

This answer to this question is unable to be confirmed due to lack of data and studies on migration of chemicals from plastics in simulated SV cooking conditions (e.g., 120 to 180 dF for an hour or more).

It has not been confirmed by the literature, but acidic or oily foods would conceivably increase the amount or concentration of any migration.

With suppliers unable to provide any information on these additives, and no existing studies on migration of contaminants specifically from SV packaging, uncertainty remains about any health impacts. Impacts of these chemicals depend on the amount of chemical migration from the plastic into the food during SV cooking, as well as their toxicity, and the susceptibility of anyone consuming the food cooked via SV.

A few studies may provide insight into the potential for migration from plastic during various cooking methods, and some of the health impacts. These are briefly described in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Study identified

Findings

Relevance to SV

Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals:

A Potential Health Problem That Can Be Solved. Yang, et al 2011.

In nine different types of food wrap (unspecified composition), the test found 78% of the samples leaching estrogenically active compounds via saline extraction, and 100% of samples using EtOh extraction.

This shows that food wraps contain estrogenic active compounds, but does not help determine if those compounds can migrate out during SV conditions, because the materials were extracted via chemicals. (Note that saline extraction is used to simulate food contact in experiments, but that does not appear to be the intent for this test).

Also, the food wrap samples tested were “unstressed”, meaning unlikely exposed to heat or other conditions similar to SV.

It is highly probable that “food wrap” type products will have EA based on the high number of samples testing positive in the Yang study. Other health impacts are unknown until more chemical information is found.

Analysis of migrants from nylon 6 packaging films into boiling water.

Barkby et al, 1993

Nylon food packaging in boiling water caused oligimers and caprolactum to migrate.

Need exact oligimer formulas to look at their toxicity. Caprolactum, however, does have toxicity information and data. One cited study here states that, “Although caprolactam is not especially toxic on oral administration, it may cause minor protracted effect on thermo-regulation and disagreeable bitter taste in foods” [Begley et al]. Despite the comment on low oral toxicity,, toxicity data sources indicate that caprolactum has human health concerns and has these risk and safety phrases in the European Union hazard system:

- Harmful by inhalation and if swallowed.

- Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin.

- Keep out of the reach of children.

Determination of potential migrants present in Nylon ‘microwave and roasting bags’ and migration into olive oil.

Soto-Valdez et al. 1997.

Volatile and non-volatile compounds were found to migrate into olive oil at ~400 dF and ~350 dF for 1 h, respectively. The test found these non-volatiles: Nylon 6,6 cyclic monomer and cyclic oligomers up to the tetramer and Nylon 6 monomer and cyclic oligomers.

They did find migration of volatiles using methanol and water extraction: cyclopentanone, octadecane, heptadecane and 2-cyclopentyl cyclopentanone.

The test temperature for the non-volatile compounds was much higher than SV, but the chemical names provided are not adequate to identify the exact compound to look at toxicity data.

The extraction of volatiles tells us these constituents are in the plastic, but not whether they would leach out in SV conditions.

Possibly no relevance to SV used in culinary programs where the food is prepared and wrapped/sealed just before cooking. Also, it appears that antimicrobials may be added to purposefully migrate and be in contact with the food.

Conclusions

- It is difficult to find the true composition of SV products. Manufacturers have mentioned two resins (nylon and polyethylene) that are used in their SV plastics, but have been unwilling to disclose the full formulations and additives.

- No studies were found in the literature evaluating migration of chemical additives from plastics in simulated SV conditions.

- For heated plastics in contact with food, several studies have shown migrated contaminants or additives that would be present in or on the contacted food. The amount or potency is unknown and dependent on many variables.

Testing of PVC film (“cling film”) plasticized with di-(2-ethylhexyl)a dipate (DEHA) was carried out in the UK (Startin et al., 1987) for a variety of foods which were either cooked or reheated in microwave ovens. They found that migration of the compound did occur, that it increased with the length of contact time and temperature of exposure, and that levels of migration were highest where there was direct contact between the film and foods with a high fat content at the surface. Highest levels of migration were observed for cheese, cooked meats, cakes and for microwave-cooked foods. An assessment of the DEHA migration from these films in such situations led to the recommendation that this type of film should not in future be used under any circumstances in conventional ovens, nor should it be used for lining of dishes or wrapping of foods in a microwave oven (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1987).

]]>http://pprc.org/index.php/2013/p2-rapid/do-plastic-chemicals-leach-into-food-from-sous-vide-sv-cooking/feed/0What are the Benefits and Drawbacks to Oxo-degradable Bags?http://pprc.org/index.php/2012/p2-rapid/oxo-degradable-bags/
http://pprc.org/index.php/2012/p2-rapid/oxo-degradable-bags/#commentsThu, 13 Dec 2012 00:17:56 +0000http://pprc.org/?p=2873RAPID RESPONSE QUESTION: What are the benefits and drawbacks to oxo-degradable bags?

Request by: City of Portland, Oregon

Introduction

The city of Portland, Oregon wanted to understand more about oxo-degradable bags with respect to using them as receptacle liners. Specifically:

Do they cause problems for plastics recyclers

Under what conditions do the material biodegrades?

Can they be included in the city’s commercial composting program?

If used oxo-degradable bags that end up in the landfill, do they offer an environmental benefit over traditional plastic bags?

Background

Degradable bags and plastic films are readily available and marketed by producers for environmental benefits, such as biodegradation. There are at least four different types of “degradable bags”.

Starch-based films and bags (heretofore referred to as “biobags”) are made of a starch or fiber, typically corn, soy or potatoes. These decompose in a controlled composting environment in 10-45 days. Bio-based plastics meet standards set by the American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM) for compostability, breaking down 60 percent or more within 180 days or less. In order to do this, bio-based plastics need water, heat, and aeration. Biobags are used in many food waste collection programs; oxo-degradable bags are not compostable.

Oxo-degredable bags, the subject of this document, are different than biobags. They are additive based biodegradable films/bags (including oxo-degradable)rely on additives to the resin to hasten degradation upon exposure to different conditions. Oxo-degradable films degrade by oxidation; hastened by the chemical additives. Degradation of oxo-degradable plastic begins with a chemical process followed by a biological process. Examples of product that may use oxo-degradable plastic include: agricultural sheeting, blister packaging, bottles, caps/closures, carryout bags, clamshells, labels, landfill covers, lids, milk pouches, pallet and shrink wrap, and trays.

Two other types of degradable plastics, also additive-based, include, hydro-biodegradable plastics which degrade by hydrolysis, and thermal-based biodegradable plastic which degrade with exposure to heat.

At the time of the initial request for information on the oxo-degradable bags, the City of Portland had compiled some information about oxo-degradable bags and plastics. They had worked with hydro-biodegradable plastics but not yet with oxo-degradable suppliers. The oxo-degradable plastic manufacturers claim the material is recyclable and compostable, and degradable in the landfill. However, studies show these bags are not compatible with recycling or composting. Thus, the City was looking for answers regarding use of these bags

Findings

Do the oxo materials cause problems for plastics recyclers?

A 2007 study [1] which evaluated two brands of oxo-degradable and hydro-degradable bags, indicates that neither type of bag are perfectly compatible with the traditional plastic grocery bag recycling stream, which is typically low-density polyethylene (LDPE).

Another study by the Loughborough University in 2010, concluded the following: “Oxo-degradable plastics are not suitable for recycling with main-stream plastics. The recyclate will contain oxo-degradable additives that will render the product more susceptible to degradation. Although the additive producers suggest that stabilisers can be added to protect against the oxo-degradable additives, it would be problematic for recyclers to determine how much stabiliser needs to be added and to what extent the oxo-degradable plastic has already degraded. On this basis it seems unreasonable to claim recyclability of oxo-degradable plastics in existing recycling streams” [2].

A study commissioned by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), Performance Evaluation of Environmentally Degradable Plastic Packaging and Disposable Food Service Ware [3] states, “Degradable plastics can negatively affect the quality and mechanical properties of recycled plastics if they are mixed with the recycled plastics. The contamination of degradable, biodegradable, and oxo-degradable plastics can be treated as other contamination to plastics. The effects of the degradable contamination can be evaluated by measuring physical properties and mechanical properties of the plastics.” One specific test conducted was on the effects of mixing oxo-degradable material with post-consumer low-density polyethylene (LDPE) at a ratio of 1:5. Researchers found that the introduction of the additive containing oxo-material increased specific gravity of the LDPE and altered the melt index of the LDPE.

A rebuttal, on the CIWMB study results, comes from theChairman of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Oxo-biodegradable Plastics Association, and claims that “The studies referred to above [in the CIWMB 2007 report) show that oxo-biodegradable polyethylene(PE) can be collected with regular PE waste for recycling without any adverse effects on the quality of the recycled products. [4]

The industry group’s (Oxo-Biodegradable Plastic Association) Scientific Advisory Board argues that combining post consumer oxo-materials with other plastics is feasible, with rationale that recycling post-consumer oxo-degradables with virgin or recycled resins effectively dilutes any additives, rendering them ineffective [5]. This position paper suggests they are recyclable “without significant detriment the newly formed plastic product.”

These differing claims and study results, that the material is recyclable with PE streams, or is not compatible and may affect the properties of the final product, are not fully resolved in the literature. Further, the Biodegradable Plastics Institute (BPI) says that the formulation of additives in oxo films varies greatly [6], which introduces even more variability in the recycling process.

Since processing conditions and quality or property requirements of reprocessed PE varies at every processor, the most real and local answer will be identified by the recycled plastic processor that may be taking that material. They can test samples in their process to see impacts on the final product.

Here is one company’s story, that started using oxo-bags, and returned to non-oxo-degradable plastic:

Dave’s Killer Bread researched oxo-degradable bags for their bread products, and knew that many oxo-degradable plastics are not recyclable. However, they did find one film that had been verified by a third party to be recyclable. After also verifying that this plastic would have no effect on the food product it was enclosing, and that the FDA had approved it for packaging, they switched to oxo-biodegradable bags in early 2009. After finding out that plastic recyclers had concerns about their bags, because of concerns over their unknown effects on the long term viability of products containing recycled oxo-biodegradable plastic, along with other new information about oxo-degradable plastics, they discontinued use of oxo-degradable bags in 2012 [7].

Here is another company’s statement on using oxo-bags in their recycled-content wood:

TREX plastic lumber company, a large volume user of recycled PE films, stated in 2008, “Unless and until the long term durability testing concludes that the oxo-biodegradable polyethylene plastic (OBPE) will not have an adverse effect on our product, Trex cannot support the introduction of OBPE materials into traditional recyclable polyethylene streams.” [8]

More recently, Trex told us that it is still their position that biodegradables are, by definition, non-recyclable. They offer a 25 year Residential Warranty on their composite lumber. If the raw materials used to manufacture this product are designed to disintegrate, they are uncertain whether their boards will bare that impact.

Should oxo plastics be included in our commercial composting program?

The literature, again, has differing study results on whether oxo-degradable bags are compostable. As an example, see the citations in this Intertek (May 2012) report, (pages 10 – 11) [9].

Currently, oxo plastics are not approved by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) because they do not meet the ASTM specs for compostability (ASTM D6400 – “Specifications for Compostable Plastics”). This standard requires that a product degrade within 180 days. The oxidation process for oxo-degradable bags tends to take longer in most conditions. While the bag may fragment within this time period, full degradation is not likely to occur.

Cedar Grove (a large commercial composter in the Pacific Northwest) does not accept, nor even typically test materials for suitability in their process if they are not BPI Approved for compostability to ASTM D6400. For those composting with companies other than Cedar Grove, the question of the suitability for composting of a particular product will be dictated by the compost operation in the area. If Cedar Grove is considering accepting an incoming material for composting, (in this case, oxo-degradable bags), they will test the material in their exact process before approving the material for compost collection.

An additional challenge that composters face is determining plastic type as plastic shoots down the conveyor belt at 50 tons per hour. If an oxo-degradable bag looks like LDPE (e.g., grocery bag), the operator is hard pressed to be able to tell the difference in the time given, and may just pull the material off the line for other disposal whether it is LDPE or oxo-degradable.

If the bags just end up in the landfill (as in trashcan liners) is there an environmental benefit to it degrading in the landfill?

Based on the literature, there seems to be no significant benefits to degradation in the landfill. Oxo-degradable products require oxygen to degrade, so decomposition deep in a landfill, with anaerobic conditions, is not likely to occur due to the absence of oxygen and UV light, where these bags are completely inert .

Conceivably, most commercially available oxo-biodegradable plastics will begin to disintegrate in the surface layers of a landfill if oxygen is present. Oxygen levels will vary according to factors such as how loose or compressed the waste was when it was buried, how much ultraviolet light is available, and how quickly additional waste materials or daily cover is added on top of the bag. One potential advantage of landfilling these, over traditional bags, is that the oxo-degradable bag will fragment sooner when conditions allow (such as loose upper layer conditions). It would then settle more easily than an ordinary plastic bag with trapped contents or air, and occupy less space.

A landfill study carried out by the University of California [10] reported that oxo-biodegradable plastic did not undergo anaerobic biodegradation during the study period of 43 days, while a control sample of paper did biodegrade under the same anaerobic conditions, and produced methane. Thomas at al (2010) concluded that these findings supported the claims from the producers of oxo-biodegradables that these products will not emit methane in anaerobic conditions in landfill sites.

Under what conditions does it decompose, and how long does it take?

Oxo bag degradation depends heavily on the surrounding conditions. According to Powell & Leineweber’s article [11], many manufacturers promote oxo-degradable products based on the assumption that full decomposition occurs between 18 and 24 months, but other studies indicate it may take five years to decompose. Critics of oxo-bags say that the oxo-degradable bonds require a hot arid environment to break, and the polymeric fractions require a warm, wet, microbe-rich environment to decompose.

Although the exact brand or resins studied are unknown, the CIWMB study [4] tested degradation rates of biodegradable plastic samples in lab, landfill, and compost settings and found that the biodegradable samples decomposed within 180 days, but no measurable degradation occurred for the selected oxo samples, using ASTM D6400 standard specifications.

One company, EcoSafe Oxo-Biodegradable Trash Bag products are said to be engineered to degrade and totally fragment in 90 to 120 days and 60% mineralize / biodegrade in a further 12 to 24 months after disposal [12]. Another company, EcoBio® products are engineered for disposal in a landfill and under these conditions will degrade and fragment at a slower rate (12 to 18 months) [13].

Can you Provide an Introductory Toolkit for Conducting Community E-Waste Collection Events?

Requested by: Anonymous

Introduction

Electronic wastes (e-wastes) include spent electronics, computers, cell phones, printers, and so on and is a problem waste stream if not managed properly.

E-waste collection events around the country are a useful service to communities and help prevent hazardous materials from being improperly disposed of. The variety and types of materials collected at an event vary depending on the hauler and recycler.

Why should community or business groups host e-waste collection events?

Good public relations and outreach about the host organization as well as proper disposal of e-wastes

E-wastes contain hazardous constituents and need to be disposed of properly (to a certified electronics recycler)

Benefits to community to be able to drive through and drop items off in one place and not have to search for a local location that accepts e-waste

Ultimately, recovery of the metals and materials (as compared to illegal dumping or landfilling) reduces the potential for constituents to release to water, air, or soil, and it reduces the need for mining and extraction of virgin materials

Steps

Typically, a minimum of two to three month(s) are needed to plan an event and conduct effective outreach to attract donors.

Here is a list of recommended steps for holding an e-waste collection event. Details for each step follow this list.

Set goals for collection

Find a reputable electronics recycler in your community to help with collection and conduct the disassembly/recycling of the collected items

Secure sponsors (if desired)

Set a date

Check with and notify government entities

Plan the day/event

Plan/conduct outreach

Conduct the event

Measure and promote success

1. Set an estimate and/or goals for collection

Goals are dependent on the host organization, but should include (but is not limited to):

Amount of waste (pounds/truckloads)

Number of households to reach with outreach messaging

Number of households dropping off material

The local e-waste recycler may have an estimating tool or past experience to help estimate the collection volume expected.

2. Find a certified recycler in your area

It is recommended to partner with an e-Steward® certified. Determine if the recycler is physically present to collects materials in trailers onsite at the collection event. If not, find out who they use for collection events to load and haul collected items to their recycling facility.

If there is no e-steward certified in their area, another search page for e-waste recyclers is at Earth911.

3. Secure sponsors.

Since these events are typically a community service, the host organization may want to have other local businesses help with outreach, covering costs, providing volunteer help on the day of the event, or be included on the outreach materials if the organization will draw more e-waste donors. Local businesses, sports teams, scouts, churches, community centers, and environmental non-profits are potential candidates for partnering on such events.

4. Set a date.

Work with recycler and facility manager at the collection site to determine a date AND hours of operation.

5. Check with and notify government entities

While it may not be required in every city, local government should be notified of collection events dealing with e-waste, to determine if there are any restrictions or special requirements, including stormwater control if it is raining that day. For instance, see California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Guidance for hosting a collection event.

If you are uncertain who you need to contact with respect to government agencies, contact PPRC (info@pprc.org) to determine which agency needs to be contacted.

6. Plan the event.

a. Devise a brand or logo, and advertising mantra

b. Work with the recycler/collector to:

Put together lists of the allowable and unacceptable materials. Emphasize that household hazardous wastes will not be accepted.

Note: Neither the host organization nor the e-waste recycler wants the liability of collecting, handling, and taking responsibility for proper transport of any fluorescent bulbs (mercury release if breakage occurs), fluids such as pesticides or solvents, PCB transformers, etc..

Determine if there is a limit of e-waste (by volume or number) per car?

Determine if electronics will be accepted from small businesses, large businesses, or only from citizens/residential donors?

c. Determine how much support the collector/hauler will provide on the day of the event, along with other requirements.

Will they do 100% of the sorting and truck loading?

Do they direct traffic ? And provide traffic signage/cones, etc? Or is that

Do they need a donor form filled out by any donors?

d. Based on goals and selected hours of operation and the level of participation from the onsite collection vendor, determine who and how volunteers or other outside hired staff are needed to run the event.

e. Determine a schedule for the day, including set up crew arrival through clean up crew.

f. Plan a short training/safety meeting before the actual start of collection. Safety issues include but are not limited to:

g. Plan a designated place where volunteers and event staff will park.

h. Establish a drive-through procedure including number of lanes, exit driving path, etc. including posters, driving arrows, other signage. Important considerations are number of drop-off lanes, ensuring that handlers and donors do not cross traffic paths, how to remove full trucks during the day if needed, and trying to ensure that there is enough room and lanes on the lot so that cars are not lined up onto streets/blocking traffic. See an example plan.

h. Develop plan for signs and arrows directing people toward the event. Make or purchase the signs.

i. If you want to media or local community blog coverage of the event, let them know via press release, phone call, or other means.

j.Will you provide handouts or gimmicks/info to customers? In the interest of less waste, maybe handouts are not preferred. If you see value in additional messaging to the e-waste donors, things that might be of interest to include are: how/where to recycle e-waste and different commodities in the future, interesting tips about recycling and pollution prevention relating to electronics, thanking them for stopping by, and/or something to this affect:

NOTE: Any and all Electronic Waste collected at these events is sent to an e-Steward® certified facility within the State of xx that certifies that it is 100% demanufactured and recycled in a stringent and environmentally acceptable manner to the commodity level in the United States. No Electronic Waste collected at these events is sent overseas.

k. Plan for other onsite needs on event day

Cones

Caution tape

Protective gloves for all staff

Scissors, large markers, tape, string,

Garbage bags or receptacles (Inevitably, some things will be dropped off that will not be accepted by the recycler)

Brooms and dustpans (for clean up of small items or any breaks)

First aid kits

Canopies in case of rain

Hand flags (for traffic directors)

If it is raining, are there any special stormwater collection or diversion devices?

E-waste collection events around the country are a useful service to communities, that help prevent hazardous materials from being improperly disposed of.The variety and types of materials collected at an event vary depending on the hauler and recycler.